Thank you.
I can't run with this brief statement, however.
There is no description of WND's investigators, their process or findings -- just a statement.
In view of the findings of Polarik and Sandra Lines and even WND's own, later investigations, I would be reluctant to publish WND’s pronouncement without more facts.
On a side note — things do change — in this article, WND attempts to discount several allegations about Obama — evidently based on its suspicions of Phil Berg's motives — now WND is leading the charge.
WND has come a long way since August, 2008, as we all have.
In this article, WND even use FactCheck.org as an authority. FactCheck has since been found to be a participant in the conspiracy to sell Obama’s COLB to the public.
Here's my own take on FactCheck.org’s “investigation”:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090217.htm#FactCheck010
*
WND claims to have examined the document itself while both Polarik and Sandra Lines speak only of the image scanned and published on the internet - two entirely different things.
On a side note — things do change — in this article, WND attempts to discount several allegations about Obama — evidently based on its suspicions of Phil Berg's motives — now WND is leading the charge.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? It wouldn't be the first time a publication perpetrated a hoax to increase readership.
Changing the subject...is there any truth to this http://top10badguys.blogspot.com/2008/11/know-your-api-accomplices-meet.html